It is very interesting to me that the idea of being called Judgmental is generally viewed very negatively. Most of us if we are called judgmental regard it as a sort of insult or putdown. Recently, I was called judgmental by a good friend. I reacted as though it was an insult or putdown. I came back defensive and said that I had made an inference and not a judgment. I was going to define the difference between the two to prove that I was not being judgmental. Suddenly, I had an epiphany. What if I were judgmental? What is wrong with taking a stand? Why should I be ashamed of being judgmental? Maybe it is the people who cannot take a stand and who are not judgmental that should be ashamed. What of the 90,000,000 people who did not vote in the last election? I suppose they were being Non-judgmental by not taking a stand. Should we applaud their non-judgmentalness? (Is there such a word?)
The more I thought about it, the more I realized that everyone is judgmental. Anyone who says that they are not judgmental is a hypocrite. That is my judgment. I will demonstrate why that is true. Why no one not even Jesus could have gone through life without making a judgment. In fact, Jesus is guilty many times of being a hypocrite. He stayed the crowd from stoning the adulterous woman and said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” He gave the famous Sermon on the Mount where he said “judge not, lest ye be judged” as recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, specifically in Matthew 7:1. However Jesus did make judgments and not just of wine but also of people. Note the following instances:
- Pharisees and Scribes – “Hypocrites”
- Passages: Matthew 23:13–33
- Jesus repeatedly denounces the religious leaders, calling them “hypocrites,” “blind guides,” and even “whitewashed tombs.” He judged them for being outwardly pious but inwardly corrupt, exploiting others, and neglecting justice and mercy.
- The Money Changers in the Temple
- Passages: Matthew 21:12–13, John 2:13–16
- Jesus drives merchants and money changers out of the Temple, judging their actions as corrupt and profane. He accuses them of turning a house of prayer into a “den of robbers.”
- Peter – “Get Behind Me, Satan”
- Passage: Matthew 16:21–23
- When Peter tries to dissuade Jesus from going to the cross, Jesus rebukes him sharply, calling him “Satan” and judging him as setting his mind on human concerns rather than God’s.
- The Rich Young Ruler
- Passage: Mark 10:17–22
- Jesus judges the man’s attachment to wealth when he claims to have kept all the commandments. Jesus tells him to sell all he has and give to the poor, exposing his lack of true devotion.
- The Cities that Rejected Him
- Passages: Matthew 11:20–24
- Jesus condemns cities like Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum for witnessing his miracles yet failing to repent. He declares their judgment will be harsher than that of Sodom.
Is Jesus a hypocrite? Why denounce judging when you yourself are guilty of the same sin? I am never again going to defend or deny being judgmental. As it says in Ecclesiastes there is a time for everything under the sun. There is a time for judging and a time for not judging. The key issue is not being judgmental. The key issue is how much you believe in your judgments. How willing are you to accept that you might be wrong? How willing are you to accept that there are other possibilities? How willing are you to accept that you do not have all the facts and now is not the best time for a judgment. No one on the planet earth lives without making judgments. An even better question is how can we make good judgments?
What should a good judgment depend on? Here are some factors:
- Truth and Evidence
- A good judgment should be rooted in facts, not assumptions, rumors, or appearances.
- It requires careful observation, listening, and distinguishing between what is known and what is merely believed.
- In biblical terms, Jesus often said, “Let those with ears to hear, hear”—urging people to seek truth beneath surface appearances.
- Fairness and Consistency
- Good judgments treat people by the same standards, not with favoritism.
- This is why justice is often symbolized as blindfolded—unbiased toward wealth, status, race, or personal connection.
- Consistency builds trust in the one making judgments.
- Compassion and Context
- A judgment shouldn’t only measure what happened but also why.
- Understanding intent, background, and human weakness allows room for mercy and growth.
- Jesus exemplified this balance—he judged hypocrisy harshly, but he forgave and restored those who stumbled in weakness (Peter, the adulterous woman, the thief on the cross).
- Wisdom and Prudence
- Good judgment looks beyond immediate effects to long-term consequences.
- Sometimes the right decision isn’t the easiest or most popular but the one that leads to greater well-being over time.
- Humility
- A final hallmark of good judgment is humility—recognizing our own limitations.
- Even when judging, we should remain aware of our own fallibility. As Jesus said, “First take the plank out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s” (Matthew 7:5).
In short: A good judgment is truthful, fair, compassionate, wise, and humble. It both protects justice and promotes healing.
So go forth friends and be not afraid of judging. Do not allow the critics of the world to dim your beliefs or ideas. There is nothing wrong with judging. It is as much a part of lives as breathing and eating. No one could walk the planet without making judgments. I have made so many judgments about the man now in office that I would need a truck to carry them all. I have been fearless in these judgments while others cower behind closed doors and pray that he will disappear.
Sometimes it takes guts and courage to make a judgment and stick by it.
To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, and be nothing. – Elbert Hubbard often misattributed to Aristotle
Aging Capriciously 
Sep 02, 2025 @ 23:50:19
There is nothing wrong with being judgemental, if you judgement is based on fact and not emotion.
We all see the same thing through different eyes, judgement is based on personal perception.
The day we try and hopefully succeed in seeing others points of view, the world will be a far, far better place.
And here ends the first lesson.
LikeLike
Sep 03, 2025 @ 15:17:09
Agree but I also believe we can never see the world from another’s point of view at least not 100 percent the way that they see it. Life for me is a series of successive approximations towards truth and reality. I will never get all the way but I keep moving. John
LikeLike
Sep 03, 2025 @ 23:19:16
Not only do I agree, but I often ask myself, what have I missed, when some one makes a point I’ve failed to see. But I’m learning.
LikeLike
Sep 04, 2025 @ 08:31:20
That’s the best we can do Jon in life is to keep learning. Every day brings new challenges and new possibilities to those with an open mind and an open heart.
LikeLike
Sep 05, 2025 @ 10:11:02
Hi, John, I am still thinking about being judgmental. Your essay made me think about our court system, where judgements are rendered daily and although many complaints are given about the judgement itself, you normally don’t hear anyone complain about the fact that a judgement was made, which is different than when an individual is criticized for making a judgement. In the court system, all judgments are formed relative to a standard, the laws of the land. I think our big issue in making judgements is, what standard are we using to facilitate the judgement. It could be our laws, as when I am driving the speed limit and someone goes flying past me and I make the judgement, “he or she is speeding’. Or someone says something that I know contradicts known facts, and I say “you are lying”. But what about judgements on abortion? What standard do we bring to bear? A belief system based in Christianity that is not held by atheists? That’s where things get tricky in my book, when we don’t agree on the standard used to promulgate a judgement. So if someone complains that we are judgemental, they may resent the fact that we made a judgement (especially if they don’t agree with it), but they may also be complaining because our judgment flies in the face of their standard. Which behooves us to be aware and clear on our standards when we do pass judgments.
Thanks again for making me think about things.
LikeLike
Sep 05, 2025 @ 16:32:13
Very good point Dennis. Deming always talked about an operational definition as essential to doing business. His definition reminded me of your point about having a standard and agreeing on it. Deming defined an operational definition as:
Key aspects of Deming’s definition:
Procedural:
It outlines a specific process or set of steps to follow.
Agreement:
It’s a shared understanding that everyone involved can agree on and use.
Measurable:
It transforms abstract concepts (like “safe” or “clean”) into quantifiable results that can be measured.
Consistent:
It ensures the same meaning and interpretation of a term or concept across different times and people.
Components of a Deming-style operational definition:
Test: The specific procedure or action taken to evaluate something.
Criteria: The standard or benchmark against which the test results are compared.
Decision: The predetermined rule for determining whether the criterion has been met, often a “yes” or “no”.
Why are operational definitions important according to Deming?
They foster clear communication and eliminate misunderstandings.
They ensure consistent quality by providing a common basis for understanding specifications and performance.
They allow for data-driven improvement by providing a baseline for comparison and tracking.
They remove subjective opinions and bias from discussions about performance, replacing them with objective, agreed-upon facts.
Very similar in some ways to your thinking Dennis about a standard for justice that we could agree on. Deming’s standard is perhaps more rigorous but I suspect Deming was dealing with things more measurable than Justice and Equality. Nevertheless, I think our courts could learn something from Deming. Deming always said that bottom line was an agreement between two reasonable parties and that was the foundation. It kind of reminds me of Heisenberg’s and Gödel’s ideas of uncertainty. That bottom line we had to agree on things we could never measure to perfection. Godel showed that there’s no “final” set of axioms that captures all mathematical truth; truth always exceeds proof. Heisenberg showed that reality itself is probabilistic at small scales; the act of measuring affects what is observed.
The limits of man’s laws as I learned in the VA are always dependent at some point on pure conjecture and standards set by what Deming called “Two reasonable men.”
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2025 @ 11:37:05
Thanks, John, I appreciate your insight from Deming, wouldn’t be lovely if most men and women in Congress and the Senate were “Deming” reasonable? I think that was much more so back when Carter was president. I despair I will not see it in my lifetime.
LikeLike
Sep 06, 2025 @ 13:48:20
Hi Dennis, it does seem like we are going backwards. I got this (see below) from another Democrat the other day. I could not believe the stupidity of the two people writing this article. Sometimes I think the Democrats are going backwards faster than the trumpists. I wrote to the publisher and told him if he was going to publish garbage like this in a progressive newsletter, the least he could do would be to allow a counter opinion to this piece. I wait his reply but without holding my breath. Thanks for the comments Dennis. Nothing makes me happier than to see a friend comment. Your insights provide a perspective that I don’t always see. I realize life is to complex to ever see from only one person’s view no matter how broad they may think it is. We always miss something that others see..
Democrats Must Oppose the AI Industry
As currently constructed, AI is an oligarchy-enriching, worker-immiserating, energy-depleting, brain-rotting economic bubble in waiting. Democrats can get on the public’s side here. BY DYLAN GYAUCH-LEWIS, MAX MORAN
LikeLike